[Jack19]

?

[mattd]

Not a Bush basher but I vote libertarian if I have the choice.

[cordex]

Lib.

Why should I support someone who actively opposes me?

[braindead0]

Doesn't matter whether the AWB sunsets or now, I vote Lib, if there's no Lib candidate, I give a vote of neither (ie: nothing).

[Sportcat]

Depends on who else is running and their views. Can't just go blanket party line.

[Kamicosmos]

voted other. ( I think you should seperate no vote and other...there is a HUGE Difference there).

I think it's way too early to tell who the front runners will be.

THat said, I sure hope a new candidate comes along...out of all the current ones, I haven't found one yet that seems like an actual American....sigh.

[SC_shooter]

The best course of action is to let Bush and the Republican leadership know that you will vote Democratic, if he signs the ban. That way it takes 2 votes to get back to where they were. One vote to cancel my vote out and one to replace it. Two votes to just break even.

[ReadyontheRight]

I just don't get why a person wouldn't vote. Many, many, many, many people died or gave up years of their lives to give you that right.

Vote Libertarian or write in John Galt or John Moses Browning if you can't stomach the Party system.

[shermacman]

I will hold my nose, I will continue to write letters, continue to take friends and anti's to the range, but I will vote for George W. Bush. The reality of electing a DemocRAT is just too destructive. I can't even stomach the intellectual theory of voting for an Independent. The bottom line is that if an al-Gore or Ho Chi Dean or Shillary get elected we are in a world of hurt. This is not a school game.

[ReadyontheRight]

The best course of action is to let Bush and the Republican leadership know that you will vote Democratic, if he signs the ban. That way it takes 2 votes to get back to where they were. One vote to cancel my vote out and one to replace it. Two votes to just break even.

:rolleyes: Yeah, and the best course of action if a bad guy breaks into your house is to shoot at the Police, that way they will bring more Police to your house.*:rolleyes:

Vote Libertarian if you disagree with Bush but agree with the Constitution.
Vote Bush if you don't want a Democrat in office.
Vote Democrat if you want a Democrat in office, but don't try to fool us.

*Edited to add that I in no way advocate shooting at Police for those of you who missed the dripping sarcasm and sarcastic smiley faces.

[Sportcat]

Noticed there are a lot if Libertarians on this board. Is there a web site I can visit that dicusses the Libertarian view?


Thanks

[ReadyontheRight]

Noticed there are a lot if Libertarians on this board. Is there a web site I can visit that dicusses the Libertarian view?

www.lp.org

IMHO -- Better yet, get involved in your local Repiblican politics and push that party closer to the Constitution.

[ReadyontheRight]

I will hold my nose, I will continue to write letters, continue to take friends and anti's to the range, but I will vote for George W. Bush. The reality of electing a DemocRAT is just too destructive. I can't even stomach the intellectual theory of voting for an Independent. The bottom line is that if an al-Gore or Ho Chi Dean or Shillary get elected we are in a world of hurt. This is not a school game.

Shermacman says it all better than my diaribes.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Thanks for the eloquence!

[Silver Bullet]

I've thought about this a bit, and I guess I've changed my position from what I stated a couple months ago.

I think I would go ahead and vote for Bush to ensure he is President when the next Supreme Court justices get replaced.

And, I would vote against any local Senators or Congressmen of either party who voted to renew AWB.

Of course, doing the latter might impede the former, so I'll have to think more about that.

Normally I don't vote for the lesser of two evils if there is a good candidate available who is supposedly "unelectable" (Tom vs Arnold vs Cruz is aclassic case; I would have voted Tom). In this case I might because I think the situation with the Supreme Court justices might be more important than sending a message to the Republicans.

[Smoke]

So Bush signs a renewal of the AWB....

"Lets put a Democrat in office; that'll teach 'em!"

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Weimadog]

Smoke: So Bush signs a renewal of the AWB....

"Lets put a Democrat in office; that'll teach 'em!"

Yes, it will. Political critters who support my rights get my vote. I vote against those who thwart those rights.

Bush has been very clear about not supporting my rights, so he does not get my vote. This is what I tell the Republican fundraisers when they call me.

Maybe, just maybe, they will learn.

Weimadog

[Oleg Volk]

Given a choice in 1939 between Hitler and Stalin, I'd have voted for Pilisudski (who had the added advantage of being a dead politician by that time). Either way, the vote would matter much less than the stashed rifles.

[Archie]

I think he's counting on congress to block re enacting the AWB. Yeah, he should get with the constitution, but President Clinton should have too.

And all democrats should be constitutionalists and supportive of the United States......

I am a Libratarian, but the Libratarian candidate will not win the presidential election in 2004. Maybe a couple places in the congressional posts, and some state and local stuff, but for president, it will be either President Bush or a Democrat, probably Hillary.

Get real: Would you prefer George W., or Hillary?

[Oleg Volk]

Not sure anymore -- at least most people I know would oppose Hillary instead of just looking the other way...

[cracked butt]

Voting for a democRAT would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Edward429451]

The Dems and Republicans have both been in office while our rights have been going away, no matter how pretty the rep. package it. They still slip away 'in compromise'.

I have been voting straight rep. ticket on the theory of lesser of the two evils and because it was explained to me that voting Libertarian is like a vote cast to the wind cause it wouldn't be enough to boot either major party.

Do you all agree with this? Have I been doing this correctly or have I been taken in by propaganda?

Please edumacate me on this.

[ReadyontheRight]

The 1992 election that delivered us the Clintons and convinced the Democrats they could further assault the Constitution:

http://www.multied.com/PageMill_Images/image130.gif

There were also some Libertarian votes mixed in here.

I was not a fan of Bush Sr. and I voted for Perot. I now beleve in the "lesser of two evils" approach.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary americans." - Bill Clinton (USA Today, 3/11/93 PG. 2-A)

[shermacman]

Edward429451:
The question of voting for principle or voting for reality has been going on since Og cast his first chad. If you vote for an Independent because he is 'pure' then you can feel good for a moment. But the reality is that if your vote for the Independent came from not voting for a half-good guy like George W. Bush then the bad guy gets the advantage. The Independent is not going to win. I know, I know, I know, if everyone keeps that attitude then the Independent will never win but that issue is way too big for us to deal with when the vote count is as close as it was in the 2000 Presidential election. We need to make strong first steps, we need to deal with reality then we can launch more intellectual challenges. But first, our basic rights need to be secured.
Just my very humble opinion!

[Augustwest]

LP, whether or not the AWB's renewed.

[GySgt]

Good Lord !!!!
Libertarians????? Holy Cow!!!!!
Now I know why I see so many demented views here.

While I must agree with (some) libertarian views, I cannot bring myself to vote as a protest, so that my vote only serves to put another blood curdling liberal democrat in office!!!!

God, Country, Corps !!!!
GySgt

[glocksman]

A female poster on another board I frequent is a hardcore Libertarian, and here's what she had to say on the subject:


The Dutchess of Zeon wrote:
If Bush signs away assault weapons? Absolutely. Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years by spoiling Bush's reelection now than have Republicans feel safe in bartering away our firearms rights for political advantage. It would teach them that firearms are non-negotiable and if they want the votes to get elected they'd need to have an uncompromising stand on it. And I'd vote libertarian to do just that if Bush signed the AWB.


Eloquent, isn't she?:D


And as for myself, I'm a fairly low wage union member. The only reasons I vote Republican are guns and fiscal discipline.

Over the last few years the Republicans have proven themselves to have all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor at the Mustang Ranch after 4 years at sea. Sign the AWB, and I might as well vote Democrat.

[Silver Bullet]

I might as well vote Democrat
You might as well vote Lib if you're not voting Republican. If you vote Democrat you're sending a message (correctly or not) that you approve of gun control.

[glocksman]

If GWB signed the AWB, I'd vote for Howard Dean before I'd vote Libertarian.


However, if any of the 9 dwarves had the Dem. nomination, then I'd vote Libertarian.

And since my Democratic Senator backs S.659 (the gun industry lawsuit bill), I plan on voting for him unless he votes for AWB renewal.

My Republican Senator voted for the original AWB and is silent on S.659, so I plan on voting either for his Democratic opponent (if he's pro 2A) or Libertarian.

[ReadyontheRight]

Better to take one of those bastard democrats now and awaken the people to their true intentions all at once than have the Republicans penny-packet us. I'd rather take it in the gut with a Democratic administration for four years...

How would 2004-2008 be different and "awaken the people" more than 1992-2000 did? It seems to me that the Republicans now must crawl back up the slippery slope on things like the AWB.

For example, pictures like this during 1992-2000 failed to wake up 99% of the sheeple:

http://www.centurytel.net/tjs11/hist/belian.jpg

[Smoke]

I said: <sarcasm> Lets put a Democrat in office; that'll teach 'em!" <sarcasm>


Weimadog said:
Yes, it will. Political critters who support my rights get my vote. I vote against those who thwart those rights.

So you beleive Democrats support your rights?

Just trying to be informed.

Smoke

[HankB]

AWB renewal would be a "doomsday" scenario for the GOP, as too many of us - me included - are virtually "single issue" voters. (Not really, but how often is someone who's pro-gun really wrong on the other issues? Once in a while, maybe, but not often.)

If the AWB is renewed, it will be because of a GOP house, a GOP senate, and a GOP President. At which point, I'll be d@***d if I'll vote for a Republican at ANY level, even if it's third assistant dog catcher. Better a declared enemy (as are most democRATS) than a backstabbing "friend."

I've written and told my congresscritters that . . . albeit more diplomatically.

Remember the old saying "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"Over the last few years the Republicans have proven themselves to have all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor at the Mustang Ranch after 4 years at sea :D Great comment - I think I'm going to shamelessly steal it, and use it next time budget issues come up as a discussion topic at our table in the lunchroom at work.

[Sergeant Bob]

The poll should be worded:

If the AWB is renewed, for whom do you vote in Nov, 2008?

Does anyone seriously think they are going pass a new AWB before the election?

[Ironbarr]

The CNN crawler at the screen bottom just passed with this...
"the last two presidential elections were won with less than 50% of the (registered) voters participating".

'nuff said.

Participate!

[jfh]

I have NO trouble seeing a scenario in which:

1) current polls show a very close race.

2) the Demorat antigunners--with or without the imprimateur of the DNC / wonks / money-controllers--start extreme confiscation rhetoric to rally a couple percent of votes off the Greens / whoever--and the polls show an impact after they do that. (Any odds on it happening to here? Personally, I'll bet on this one.)

3) the press pumps up a firearms incident--let's say it's three killings in twelve hours in Cleveland (Cocinich crowd), or a MacDonald's freezer in Brooklyn. Simultaneously, they ignore four good defensive shoots.

4) The polls ten days later show a 5% tilt (e.g., beyond the margin of error)--and that weekend, another chopper goes down in Iraq.

5) And the antigunners now scream about the bottled-up AWB ban.

6) Now, what are the odds on the GOP leadership in either the House or the Senate let the AWB out to move to a vote? I will NOT bet on this one--I think it's a sure thing.

[SC_shooter]

If Bush signs the AWB, how is he any better than Clinton (Bill or Hillary)? Because he's a "Republican"? Would the AWB be more palatable just because a Republican signed it?

Paul

[Justin]

ReadyontheRight sez:
The 1992 election that delivered us the Clintons and convinced the Democrats they could further assault the Constitution:

http://www.multied.com/PageMill_Images/image130.gif

Cute pie chart.

Wanna hazard a guess at just how many electoral votes ol' Ross won?

[Smoke]

If Bush signs the AWB, how is he any better than Clinton (Bill or Hillary)? Because he's a "Republican"? Would the AWB be more palatable just because a Republican signed it?

You're missing the bigger picture. Lets say Bush does sign the renewal of the AWB in its present form and ahead of the election. (lots of big IFs there)

And all the shooters in the USA vote Dem or Libertarian out of protest.


What happens now. You have a Democrat in office for the next for years. He's probably rabid anti-gun and appoints justices that share his views. He now wants more legislation on guns and guess what ....he gets it.

If Bush signs the AWB he's an S.O.B. But that will probably be the only gun laws that are signed. It won't be with the Dems.

Smoke.

[cordex]

If Bush signs the AWB he's an S.O.B. But that will probably be the only gun laws that are signed. It won't be with the Dems.
The way I see it, an enemy in front of you is easier to fight than a traitor behind.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Voting for a democRAT would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So what would voting for a Republican after they passed key elements of the Democrat party platform on guns with a Republican House, Senate and White House be like?

Republicans received $1.4 million in PAC contributions from pro-gun rights groups during the 2000 election cycle (compared to $12,000 given to Republicans by gun control orgs). They received another $1 million in soft money in 2000 from gun-rights groups (compared to $0 from gun control groups). Throw in another $1.3 million since the 2000 elections from PAC contributions.

The Republicans now hold the Senate, House and White House. This may come as a shock to some; but if they aren't going to help us now when it is easy and we are giving them millions of dollars per election cycle, exactly when will it be convenient for them to help us that I should continue to vote for them?

I can't say who I will vote for; but if the AWB is renewed, it will absolutely not be Bush.

P.S. Want a depressing factoid? Unrealistically assuming no overhead costs, if each NRA member had donated just $3 to the NRA PAC in 2000, the NRA would have had more money than ALL other PACs (not just gun rights PACs - all of them) combined in the 2000 election. By my reckoning, the NRA raked in an astonishing $0.38 per member in 2000 for its PAC.

By the way, if you hate the NRA and prefer a "no compromise" approach, all it takes is for every GOA member to donate $40 to GOA to reach the same goal (assuming a 300,000 membership per GOA). In the 2000 election cycle, GOA stalwarts donated enough to put the NRA to shame with a massive $0.57 per member for PAC donations.

[P12]

I'll do a write in for "Bugs Bunny"

[CZ52GUY]

I found Bush's pre-emptive statement that he would sign a strait AWBAN renewal (pending results of study) baffling.

A guy over on another forum expressed his concern to the White House and received a letter recently confirming the Presidents willingness to sign a strait renewal (even after the study in question provided less than ideal findings for the other side).

Doing some research a few weeks ago, I was surprised to find out that the AWBAN can really be traced in part to William Bennett and Bush the Elder. To be sure, Klinton and the Dem's pushed it through in greater force in 1994 (to their political detriment), but this is something that both major parties (especially so-called moderate Republikrats in the Senate) have been willing to embrace in the past.

I won't vote Libertarian because I disagree that the contracted killing of an unborn human being is a matter of "personal privacy". Similarly, the idea of harvesting their genetic material and having Lou Dobbs or Neil Cavuto reporting on Stem Cell futures is something I find nauseating. No, a pro-gun Lib' won't be getting my vote either.

Finally, I won't vote for a Jack-??? running for dog catcher, never mind president of the free world. Dean is reading the tea leaves and claims he supports the extension of the bogus Ban.

Given the choice of a compromising Republican, a murder supporting Libertarian, or an overt gun-grabbing, Al-Quaeda appeasing, wealth redistributing, murder is just proclaiming Democrat...and a Bogus ban having been extended, made worse, or permanent, I'd be inclined to write in "From My Cold Dead Hands" because at that point the Tree of Liberty may require refreshing.

CZ52'

[Calmwater]

If Bush were to sign an AWB renewal, I would find it hard to put faith in the possibility that he will seek to nominate SC Justices that have any better grasp of the USC than himself.

[w4rma]

For all the talk around here that folks give about civil rights, why hasn't anyone brought up the Patriot Act drafted, supported and signed into law by the Bush misadministration and the Patriot Act II that is currently being passed in pieces hidden in huge spending bills?

Do some folks here not care that the government can, via the Patriot Act, hire someone to pick the lock on your door, take things out of your home and never tell you about this? Do some folks here not care that the government now has access to your bank account records and can watch your transactions without you ever knowing about this?

[mantispid]

Look, the more statists we can vote into office, the faster we can start over. Putting in the neocons and other pseudo-limited government types only prolongs the pain.

I prefer getting the pain over with quickly.


But from a practical standpoint, if the AWB is renewed, I think I'll have to find some BM friends. Remember, there is no ethical obligation to follow unethical laws.


In truth though, I vote Libertarian in the desperate hope that people will eventually see the light. But, as time goes on, things are looking more and more bleak.. and I'm thinking Jefferson's views on patriots and tyrants are becoming more of a reality every year.

[seeker_two]

I will vote for the PERSON who's actions have shown that they best represent my views and desires--regardless of party, gender, race, or the threat of "the boogie-woman" getting into office....

Bush ain't that person right now. :fire:

Hopefully, a good candidate will make a showing in the GOP primaries & give him a run for the money. If not, :banghead: ...

[CZ52GUY]

Can someone please describe to me within the Patriot Act proper (beyond the numerous chicken little claims posted on forums like these) Constitutional inconsistencies with the 4th which demands probable cause and a warrant?

Why is there among some this suicide pact with so-called civil liberties which insist on bringing back the Church era which made 911 so much easier for Atta and the other 18?

The founders recognized the need to protect against tyranny at home and abroad.

Why is it such a mutually exclusive proposition to so many?

BTW, a vote for Dean is as much a vote for the AWBAN as any of the others. He claims to support it.

So...if Bush doesn't sign it, then the new Dean administration is likely to have coat-tails in the Senate and perhaps even within the house to ensure that a promise to sign it (which may be an ill advised political gambit) is used by the foolish to ensure that it is enacted...probably with more onerous provisions.

A pre-emptive declaration of support for Dean, a wallet robbing panderer to each and every constituency he can find is naive at best, and complicit to 2nd Amendment adversaries at worse.

His support of Civil Unions in VT if taken to the White House will give us a repeat of Bill's first 100 day priority of Don't Ask Don't Tell, except with the added bonus that we can continue the lunging embrace of anything and everything that will contribute to the continued moral decay of our nation. For those that are ambivolent from a moral standpoint, the financial implications will be tangible and consequential.

His insistence on perpetuating the "cut and run" image of America within the Jihadist world will ensure more 911's, not prevent them.

Our best bet is to pray that Bush is suffering from a regretable case of Rovism (something similar to his nonsensical rantings about the peaceful tenets if Islam and the entitlement of the candy throwing 911 celebrating Palestinians to their own country).

We can make a difference. The time to stop the anti's is now. My state is green, how's yours?

www.awbansunset.com

CZ52'

[Ryder]

I don't need one more vote to make such a decision.

Actions speak louder than words. He has passed up the opportunity to improve our situation and wants to pursue further oppressive legislation. He has appeased the dems at every turn. I'll put my vote where my mouth is from now on and vote Libertarian.

If that means a dem gets in office I am unconcerned. Liberty can't be permanantly stifled. Let them accellerate this slow boil into a raging cauldron.

[mantispid]

The founders recognized the need to protect against tyranny at home and abroad.

Why is it such a mutually exclusive proposition to so many?


Well, from my point of view, it's because a country that no longer respects freedoms (willing to sacrifice them for security), isn't worth protecting.

Liberty or Death, IMHO..

Terrorists ain't nearly as much a threat to my quality of life as politicians are.

[CZ52GUY]

Well, from my point of view, it's because a country that no longer respects freedoms (willing to sacrifice them for security), isn't worth protecting.

Do you travel at all for your vocation?

I could have easily been on any of those 4 flights, I happened to be on vacation 9/11/2001. The drive home was surreal to say the least.

When essential liberties (like the 2nd) are sacrificed based on imagined security (we're doing it for the children), then your point is well taken.

When imagined threats to liberties (like the chicken little claims about the Patriot Act which NO ONE can come up with section & paragraph indicating that probable cause and warrant stipulations from the 4th has been legisltated away) are used to ensure credible threats to security (show me the skyscraper full of people that the pol's have brought down and I'll concede your point) then we have an ackbassward view of the world.

Rent "In Memoriam" sometime. Listen to the thuds of the 4 jumpers whose only crime was going to work that day.

The threat of Jihadism is real. The threat of the Patriot Act is an imagined one used by the Left to pull the Libertarians to their side.

There is a sincere but naive part of our populace who insists on being duped into stupidity. Don't join them. If you are already among them, get help.

The Patriot Act, like the AWBAN is set to expire, as it should once the threat is sufficiently diminished.

Like the AWBAN, should the Patriot Act be inappropriately brought up for extension, we can fight, and I'll join you (assuming we finish the job with the Jihadists).

To suggest that the Patriot Act represents a greater tangible threat than Jihadism is to follow the same path that made 911 a reality. As long as we continue the policy of cut and run, pursue a suicide pact with so-called civil liberties, and ignore the blood and ashes from that horrible day, then the Jihadists will continue their quest.

Show me One Incident of where the Patriot Act has provided a tangible injury which exceeds the benefit of overturning the Church Doctrine?

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

CZ52'

[Silver Bullet]

If Bush were to sign an AWB renewal, I would find it hard to put faith in the possibility that he will seek to nominate SC Justices that have any better grasp of the USC than himself.
I'm more concerned about how he will get congress to approve his choices. Look at how the Dems are stonewalling his choices for Federal judges now.

[Edward429451]

Hmmm. That pie chart tells me to vote GOP, but the rhetoric (and the last three years of compromis is telling me to vote LIB.

How do encourage more turnout? People are so unconscious, they'd rather stay home and watch tv than go vote.:rolleyes:

[ctdonath]

I was not a fan of Bush Sr. and I voted for Perot. I now beleve in the "lesser of two evils" approach.

Bush Sr. said "read my lips: no new taxes" then signed the biggest tax increase in history. I have no qualms about not voting for him again. Gee, Bush Jr. is now cutting taxes instead of raising them - guess where he got that idea?

Gore lost by losing states which, by all political reasoning, should have supported him. A major scale-tipping factor? Gun control. The Dems have admitted that. Now, facing the next election, they're starting to position themselves as gun-neutral, if not pro-gun - guess where they got that idea?

Simple: those politicians who actively oppose my core values will not get my vote. A reluctant vote of support is still a vote of support (kinda like "there's no such thing as bad publicity").

[twoblink]

I seemed in LA county, Batman gets more votes than Superman on the odd years and visa versa on the even years :D

The difference between voting for a Republican or Democrat candidate is that you are voting for a person (or in cases like Hillary, you are voting against a person) and with the Libs, you are voting for principles. I don't care who the lib canddiate is, I know they are for lower taxes, and less government. Sounds pretty darn good to me!!!

[J-Man]

If you can't decide who to vote on vote Ron Paul. As far as I can tell he's the best canidate out there.

[mantispid]

I don't travel much since the TSA was created. I drive if it takes less than 14 hours. I won't give the airlines my money if I can help it, for going along with the TSA stuff.

As for sections of the Patriot Act...:

When imagined threats to liberties (like the chicken little claims about the Patriot Act which NO ONE can come up with section & paragraph indicating that probable cause and warrant stipulations from the 4th has been legisltated away) are used to ensure credible threats to security (show me the skyscraper full of people that the pol's have brought down and I'll concede your point) then we have an ackbassward view of the world.


Cato article on Section 215 of the Patriot Act (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030910.html)


PDF of quick Overview of Patriot Act provisions, with indicated sections (http://www.cato.org/events/patriot-overview.pdf)

You can read the entirety of the Patriot Act here (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

(show me the skyscraper full of people that the pol's have brought down and I'll concede your point)

Oh that's easy. Just calculate all the people killed in the drug war. I'm sure it'll fill more than 2 skyscrapers... then add all the people in prison as a result of the drug war. Now you have a city. Now add all the people in prison or that have been killed for weapons possession violations... the city grows... now add all the people in prison for prostitution-related activites.. the city adds some suburbs... All these things should not be illegal.. the fact that they are, means that congress at some point (federal or state level) has abridged liberties.. that abridgement has lead to death and loss of freedom for so many people it is nearly unfathomable.

[CZ52GUY]

Bush Sr. said "read my lips: no new taxes" then signed the biggest tax increase in history. I have no qualms about not voting for him again. Gee, Bush Jr. is now cutting taxes instead of raising them - guess where he got that idea?

Actually, Bush Sr. in a budget stalemate caved in to Democrat extortion and voted for so-called vice taxes.

Klinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut, then foisted the biggest tax increase in history. You are confusing your presidents.


Gore lost by losing states which, by all political reasoning, should have supported him. A major scale-tipping factor? Gun control. The Dems have admitted that. Now, facing the next election, they're starting to position themselves as gun-neutral, if not pro-gun - guess where they got that idea?

If you review the voting records of the Democrat candidates, you will find that they consistently support the Brady-Center position. They try to posture themselves as more pro-gun, and Kerry even arraigned himself in blaze orange for a photo op' (I was wondering where his eye and ear protection were?).

Dean, as posted earlier and available from numerous print resources, is committed to the AWBAN.


Simple: those politicians who actively oppose my core values will not get my vote. A reluctant vote of support is still a vote of support (kinda like "there's no such thing as bad publicity").

A good rule of thumb, just make sure you filter out the sound bites and find out where they really stand.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[STONER]

If Bush loses the next election it will be his fault, and the fault of the advisers he has surrounded himself with. Since his very narrow win, he has done nothing but alienate his base. Like father, like son. Bob Dole did the same thing, he lost also. When the Republican's lose, it is usually because of an inferior product ( like AMC' Gremlin). Not the voters ( customers) fault.

The system is rigged, both in reality, and perception. We have two major parties, and they have rigged ballot access, and the Presidential Debates. If you cannot get into those debates, the majority of the sheeple will not know about you. Most everyone is aware of only the major candidates ( Repubs & Demonrats). Its like advertising, you are not going to buy a product that you have not heard about. Most people have heard over & over again that a vote for a third party candidate is throwing their vote away. It becomes a self fullfilling prophesy. The perception becomes reality. Then we usually vote for the lesser of two evils. :evil:

Personally, I will vote for the candidate that I believe will do the best to live & lead by the Constitution of the United States. I have been voting in elections for over 35 years. I am tired of voting for the lesser. From now on I will be voting my beliefs. If, just once, everyone voted their conscience, ( like our Founding Fathers did ) the myth of 3rd parties can't win could evaporate.

If a Demonrat does win the White House, take heart, the Republicans in Congress will find their backbone, and will probably put up a fight, instead of just rolling over.

Our Founding Fathers heard many, many times that they could not defeat the British. Sure glad they took the gamble!;)

[CZ52GUY]

...at least a good faith attempt, albeit a weak one.

Re: Section 215

The Cato article is an editorial, which is the author's right under the 1st.

Let's examine the basic claim, which is unfettered - unchecked access to anything anytime by the FBI.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.


The Cato author assumes that the Judge will rubber stamp all requests.

I don't buy it.

The Cato author fails to include the Congressional oversight provision. For political reasons alone (and we've seen plenty) abuses of the Patriot Act would be far too tempting to sweep under the rug.

Reading from the 4th...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause, determined by a judge, specific place, persons, and things to be seized.

I do not see within Section 215 language inconsistent with the 4th.

As a practical matter, I see both legal and political checks and balances to strongly discourage abuse.

Next?

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

Delay in execution of a warrant...meaning, probable cause claim approved by judge, but delay in sending in the LEO's based on 3 criteria:

1) If THE COURT finds reasonable cause...
2) If warrant prohibits seizure...except where COURT finds reasonable necessity
3) If the warrant provides for giving of notice...which may be extended by THE COURT

Probable cause, court supervision, where's the black helicopter play here?

CZ52'

[mantispid]

Heh, read it a little more closely. It isn't a delay in the execution of the warrant.. it's a delay in notifying the person that a warrant has been served. ;)

So, you come home and find your house ransacked (or maybe they were super-covert, and you don't even know you've been searched). Two weeks later (or longer), you get notice that a warrant has been served to search your property retroactively. :P

[CZ52GUY]

Oh that's easy. Just calculate all the people killed in the drug war. I'm sure it'll fill more than 2 skyscrapers... then add all the people in prison as a result of the drug war. Now you have a city. Now add all the people in prison or that have been killed for weapons possession violations... the city grows... now add all the people in prison for prostitution-related activites.. the city adds some suburbs... All these things should not be illegal.. the fact that they are, means that congress at some point (federal or state level) has abridged liberties.. that abridgement has lead to death and loss of freedom for so many people it is nearly unfathomable.

Where's the Constitutional basis for this (excuse me) nonsense?

The Constitution charges the government for providing a common defense against enemies of this great nation.

The Patriot Act within its provisions ensures that the provisions of the 4th are honored from a legal standpoint, and congressional oversight (as well as media scrutiny) provide a tangible and credible defense against abuse.

The ability of the government to pass laws making certain substances controlled and regulating behavior from a societal benefit is a matter for legitimate debate, but it is a legal question subject to legislative scrutiny. There has not been a successful Constitutional challenge to the right of the people to get high, pay for fornication and exposure to aids and other benefits of a truly "libertarian" society.

Your right to pursue legislative redress is guaranteed within the 1st. Any claim that you are Constitutionally entitled to getting high, paying for sex, and aids exposure is clearly a reach.

Your claims that the Patriot Act represents some Constitutional crisis is rebutted by the facts.

I guess since I have no need for getting high, and don't have any desire to pay for sex or aids exposure, and my tangible desire to see the Federal Government carry out successfully one of its few mandates within Constitutional parameters so I don't have to take on Jihadists inside an airplane so they don't crash into your place of work clouds my thinking...

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[mantispid]

Your right to pursue legislative redress is guaranteed within the 1st. Any claim that you are Constitutionally entitled to getting high, paying for sex, and aids exposure as clearly a reach.

There is no such reach. The Constitution serves ONE purpose: To protect the property and free exersize thereof of people living within the Several States.

Anything that violates that, is a violation of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't a laundry list of the only rights. It just touches on some of the ones the original several states thought were the most likely to be abridged by a central government.

National defense is a form of property protection.. no problem there. But if you start violating property rights of people in order to protect their property... well, you see the contradiction.

[CZ52GUY]

Heh, read it a little more closely. It isn't a delay in the execution of the warrant.. it's a delay in notifying the person that a warrant has been served.

We need to make sure that the Jihadists have time to hide the evidence then? That is the essential concern you have over section 213? The fact that Court oversight in delaying the notification (per the provisions of the 4th) are immaterial because Jihadists have the right to fair notice before they are raided?


So, you come home and find your house ransacked (or maybe they were super-covert, and you don't even know you've been searched). Two weeks later (or longer), you get notice that a warrant has been served to search your property retroactively. :P

If the FBI has allocated resources to searching a home, and received judicial approval to execute a warrant, a judical approval to delay notification of the warrant per one of the three criteria within Section 213 that allows for it, then given the resources available to them, and the consequences "getting it wrong", I would say the threat of Section 213 to my circumstances is far less than that of a 911 repeat on a route I have flown on multiple occasions.

Have you ever heard of the media?

Have you ever heard of the CATO institute (you cited an article by the author)?

Have you ever heard of the Democrat party?

A Section 213 abuse carried out at the direction of the AG (likely a member of the party of the President in power) would be difficult to hide and would be politically devastating.

The desire of the media to run with this type of story would be insatiable. The further we move from 911 the less tolerance (and rightly so) the public would have.

The dangers of the Patriot Act cited are plausible but not practical.

The dangers of Jihadism are real, and permanent.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[mantispid]

We need to make sure that the Jihadists have time to hide the evidence then? That is the essential concern you have over section 213? The fact that Court oversight in delaying the notification (per the provisions of the 4th) are immaterial because Jihadists have the right to fair notice before they are raided?

Yes. I think 10 seconds to answer the door is fair enough notice.



You say that there are more than enough checks on any potential abuse of Section 213.

I'm willing to surmise that you'd say the same for the abuse of power by the ATF, etc. when conducting raids on private property.

Yet... we had Waco... AND Ruby Ridge... under the Clinton Administration.. and yet there was no big 'outcry' by the media of rights abuses. The Republican party didn't do a thing outside of a few pieces of lipservice. The Cato Institute did do some articles on the abuse of power, but Cato is not as widely read by the general population as many of us would like.

No sir, our own government is a much bigger threat than any jihadist. Jihadists are a threat, but a relatively minor one that can be dealt with through a few surgical strikes and through non-interventionist foreign policy... interventionist policies breed jihadists. If you're trying to eliminate a thing, the first course of business is to make sure it doesn't reproduce.

[CZ52GUY]

There is no such reach. The Constitution serves ONE purpose: To protect the property and free exersize thereof of people living within the Several States.

The Constitution enumerates its purpose. You editorialize and elasticize it beyond recognition.


Anything that violates that, is a violation of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't a laundry list of the only rights. It just touches on some of the ones the original several states thought were the most likely to be abridged by a central government.

At the time of the ratification of said document, legislation restricting controlled substances of the time and prohibiting the oldest profession exhisted. The document did not nullify those laws then, with respect, it does not support your interpretation of it now.


National defense is a form of property protection.. no problem there. But if you start violating property rights of people in order to protect their property... well, you see the contradiction.

The 4th is the germane section of the Constitution regarding the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. The 4th acknowledges that there will be occasions when Law Enforcement requires search and seizure as part of prosecuting prior crimes and perhaps preventing future ones. International Terrorism carried out against the United States is a crime, not a Constitutionally protected alternative form of behavior.

The 4th sets out criteria as described above.

The Patriot Act is written with the intent to comply with the criteria set forth in the 4th.

Individuals exercising their 1st Amendment right have questioned the need for the act, its effectivity, and voiced their concern for potential abuse.

Having had the opportunity to more thoroughly review their claims (and I thank you for the referrals) I do not concur with their assessment. The 4th is upheld. The tangible obstacles to discourage abuse are evident, and the aggressive pursuit of Jihadists who pursue a kill or convert evangelism is encouraged.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

...I don't equate the armed response to a truly disturbed cult leader and his extremists (as tragic as it was for the dozens who perished) with the death of thousands at WTC.

...I don't equate the controversial, potentially excessive use of force (I've yet to read an objective account of the incident) which tragically killed a few, with the dozens more who died at the Pentagon and in PA.

...the likelihood that any of us will be subject to deadly force at the hands of our government is infinitely smaller than the threat of international terrorism, especially if they can achieve their goal of obtaining and using WMD's.

9/11 changed things.

Some believe it and are seeking to do something about it.

Some are in denial, and are clinging to their old prejudices and phobias because it is familiar, and comfortable, and easier to accept.

Less than 100 people perished in Waco and at Ruby Ridge.

Nearly 3000 perished on 9/11...thousands more could have had it not be for the bravery of FDNY & NYPD.

Hundreds of thousands could perish as the result of a successful WMD strike by the Jihadists.

You are free to believe what you choose to believe, but your risk assessment is flawed.

Best wishes and stay safe,

CZ52'

[MeekandMild]

While I must agree with (some) libertarian views, I cannot bring myself to vote as a protest, so that my vote only serves to put another blood curdling liberal democrat in office!!!! OK Libbys, 'fess up! How many of you voted for that weiner dawg, Ross Perot? :neener:

[CaesarI]

AWB is renewed, I vote for the Dem. for all the issues already listed.

The only problem I see here is that if the Dems are aware of this they will push harder on the AW Ban renewal in the hopes of winning anti-gun soccer moms, AND pro-gun stalwarts. Ironic no? Divide and conquer.

The solution... well the solution is that we pray to god Dean wins, and then we further pray to god that Dean runs Ron Paul as his running mate, and then... well... :uhoh: well... what was it Jefferson said about the Liberty Tree?

-Morgan

[ReadyontheRight]

How many of you voted for that weiner dawg, Ross Perot?

I wouldn't exactly call Ross Perot a "weiner dog" -- especially if you appreciate all things tactical. For those of you who only know Mr. Perot from the 1992 election:

http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm

"...In 1979, two EDS employees were taken hostage by the Iranian government. Perot directed a successful rescue mission composed of EDS employees and led by retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons. Perot himself went to Iran and entered the prison where his men were held. Ken Follett wrote a best selling novel, On Wings of Eagles, about the rescue..."

Cute pie chart. Wanna hazard a guess at just how many electoral votes ol' Ross won?

I haven't studied the 1992 votes state by state. Are you saying that a candidate would still lose the electoral vote while getting 56.7% of the popluar vote? (making the BIG assumption that all voting for Perot would vote for Bush if he weren't there). It's not as if the big city folks were voting for Perot.

Regardless -- I just know I personally wasted a vote on Perot and it will take a lot for me to do so again.

[ReadyontheRight]

what was it Jefferson said about the Liberty Tree?

So..We've sat through Ruby Ridge, Waco, the original AWB, Elian Gonzalez, Chinese infiltration into a presidential adminstration...

And you are going to vote Democrat in hopes that it will cause a revolution? I'd hate to think of what you believe the Democrats will do that they haven't already done to get the sheeple whipped up into a blood frenzy.

[Tamara]

If God wanted man to vote, he would've created candidates worth voting for... :uhoh:

[mantispid]

Here's a section from page 496 of "Send in the Waco Killers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967025907/thefreemind-20)" by Vin Suprynowicz (http://www.reviewjournal.com/columnists/suprynowicz.html):

So, unless there's a solid Libertarian on the ballot or you can figure out a way to use your vote to sow confusion among the enemy, my advice on election day was and is: Stay home. Don't vote. Certainly don't endorse with your vote the "lesser-of-two-evil" statist collectivist looters-at-gunpoint. It will not achieve "peaceful change." When was the last time you cast a straight up-or-down vote on whether you can own a machine-gun collection or an opium plantation without the government's permission, or whether the IRS and its income tax shall end tomorrow? If you were allowed to cast such a vote and the initiative passed two-to one, do you think our government would honor the will of the majority any more than it allowed the voters of Arizona and California to legalize medical marijuana, by their two-to-one majority votes in 1997? Don't vote. It only encourages them, and allows them to claim your personal support and endorsement for their tyranny.

Fortunately there is always a Libertarian on the ballot around here to vote for.

[cordex]

Any claim that you are Constitutionally entitled to getting high, paying for sex, and aids exposure is clearly a reach.
No more reach than claiming you have the Constitutional right to buy or make ammunition. And since there is no Constiutional right involved, the gov't should be able to regulate it, tax it and - if they so choose - prohibit it. Yes?

[CaesarI]

Backing Cordex here:
The Constitution does not entitle anyone to anything, it cedes certain rights that were possessed by the people to the government. The federal government was not granted the right to regulate "getting high, paying for sex, or aids exposure". The states on the other hand, may pick and choose according to their own constitutions.

Personally I've no desire to get high (aside from runner's high), pay for sex (unless we're talking about paying for dinner and a movie which leads to sex), or to get any aids exposure, however, if someone else would like to do any of those things, I may try and persuade them otherwise, but its not my place to tell them they cannot. I am not their mother. Neither is the state.

-Morgan

[Smoke]

Re: The Patriot Act
Do some folks here not care that the government now has access to your bank account records and can watch your transactions without you ever knowing about this?

Since I am in the banking industry I feel I must comment....

Not True.

Smoke

[cordex]

Smoke,
So what happens if I decide to buy a car from a friend for $10,001?

Don't need the patriot act to track that, though.

[tfurey19]

Bush screws us on this we screw him. The best way is to vote dem

[mantispid]

Since I am in the banking industry I feel I must comment....

Not True.

Smoke

Smoke is right on this one, *technically*. The government doesn't directly 'watch' everyones' bank accounts.

What they DO, however, is require the bankers to report on their customers should a transaction pass some predetermined threshold.

This I know to be true, as I asked my credit union about it. It was something like any transaction over $5000.00 or $10,000.00... I can't remember which.

[Smoke]

What they DO, however, is require the bankers to report on their customers should a transaction pass some predetermined threshold.

True. But only if the transaction is cash and only above a cutoff amount. Reports are not "monitored" either, they are warehoused in case they need "evidence" to prosecute a case.

These were in place years ahead of the Patriot Act.

Banking regulations do require a bank to file a Suspicious Activity Report if we beleive there to be a reason. In my career; I've never seen one filed. But I work for a small rural bank.

And again these were in place well before anyone ever thought of the Patriot Act.

You can blame the war on drugs for these.

Smoke.

[Don Galt]

I cannot believe that %20 of the participants at this point would vote for Bush after he re-signed the AWB (and probalby expanded it to include all semi-auto rifles). You certainly aren't single issue gun rights supporters!

I can understand not wanting to vote democrat-- they aren't any better on gun rights. But if you vote for bush after doing this, I don't think you can call yourself a gun rights supporter.

The obvious choice (And %59 have chosen it at this point) in such a scenario is to vote for the gun rights supporting , small government (And he means it!), lower taxes (And he means it!) anti-socialism (the only one on the ballot!) Libertarian candidate.

You are supposed to vote your principles. That's what voting is all about. IF you sell out your principles for strategic reasons--- you simply tell the republicans and democrats that they can buy you.

And that they can buy you CHEAP.

IF Bush can sign the AWB and it isn't a painful lesson for him, then the republicans will never learn. When Bush acts like a gun grabbing democrat, then a DEMOCRAT DESERVES to win the next election.

The only way that republicans can be worth voting for is if they show a difference between them and the democrats, and when they act like democrats, they should lose. Look at Bush 1-- he lost in large part because he raised taxes. Oh, and a Real Republican showed up in the personage of Ross Perot and stole a lot of his votes. IF Bush had made Ross Perot irrelevant-- by being a Real Republican himself, he would have had %60 of the popular vote going by the chart that was put in this thread.

Don

Confidential to CZ52 Guy-- half the libertarians in the world are pro-life, half are not. They want the states to decide-- they are for smaller government. They do not want the federal government involved in such decisions. You should vote Libertarian.

[Smoke]

You certainly aren't single issue gun rights supporters!

With all due respect to Art's Gramma:

You're damned right I'm not!

There is more to being President and running the greatest country in the world than Gun Rights. I'll grant you thats at the top, if not THE top, of my list of things to consider....but it ain't the ONLY thing to consider.

I'll say this once again....a democrat in the White House will be worse for 2A than Bush will.

Smoke

[Don Galt]

Naw, the second ammendment is doomed until the Supreme Court gets off its ??? and starts doing its job for a change.

The republicans are the ones who concocted the original assault weapons ban in the first place.

All this "they're worse than us" and "we're better than them" is just the circus they put on every four years to keep you confused and make you think there is a choice.

There are only two major parties going to be on the ballot--- you can either vote for the democrat wing or the republican wing of the socialists.

Or you can vote libertarians and vote capitalist.

The idea that george bush, after signing the AWB, and after pledging to sign it, is a gun rights supporter is amazing.

Denial ain't just a river in egypt!

[TheeBadOne]

Who is this "Libertarian" candidate that everyone is going to vote for?

[Don Galt]

Michael Badnarik. He's got %49 of the straw poll going on right now.

http://www.badnarik.org/ is his website.

He's a constitutionalist, and I believe, a pro-lifer.

Don

[mantispid]

I like Badnarik.. I've taken his Constitution class.. but I'm unsure of him being a good presidential candidate at this time. He's ideal as a libertarian.. but I don't know how well he'll serve to convert the non-libertarians to libertarianism.

Gary Nolan, on the other hand, is quite skilled at getting non-libertarians to listen to the libertarian message.


I guess it comes down to what strategy you want to pursue...

[DTLoken]

http://www.boomundo.com/dean/nra.htm

[gunsmith]

if there is a new AWB or the old one does not sunset
then I think it's time for necktie parties.
We are at war.
The enemy is at our shores.
We need more guns and ammo not less.
How many Americans have to die before we get
our dang guns back?
how many planes crashing into buildings?
The terrorist are here now and they want to kill your children.
If the Politicians stand in the way of the free people of the U.S.A
bearing arms
during a war against the U.S.A they are certainly treasonous
and should be hung until they relent their tryanny

[gunsmith]

and have been real sorry about that!

[Don Galt]

Gunsmith--

We have the AWB now, and we're not in civil war. I don't think renewal is going to be more likely to start one than original passage....

Mantispid--

I don't know nolan that well. Have to go by website quality and how they look at this point. (Hey, I have some time for research!)

But since they are the two frontrunners, maybe one will be VP for the other and they will run a good campaign.

I'm just glad L. Neil Smith didn't get any traction.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

when does the revolution start?

You guys crack me up... one of the more radical gun rights organizations with the most passionate and involved, "No compromise" members can barely manage to get $0.57 per member to fund its PAC and people sit around and ask questions like "When does the revolution start?"

Here's a news flash - there isn't going to be any revolution over gun rights. If you can't get 300,000 people to part with more than $0.58 a piece in a year, what do you think your chances are of getting 1/10th of that to pick up a gun and risk everything they own over it?

If you can't win at the voting booth, you aren't going to win a "revolution".

[RandyC]

Vote for Bush. We desperately need the conservative leaning judges. Otherwise you might as well vote for Ralph Nader.

Vote your Libertarians in at the local and state level and watch your garden grow.;)

[jfh]

Randy summed up the kind voting I guess I'll do.

I can't see voting for Dean and letting him become a 'Federal-level' Democrat beholden to Feinstein, Kennedy, et.al.--believe me, what he has been as a State Governor is NOT what he will be as a Federal-Level Democrat.

But here in MN, Libertarian alternatives are pretty thin--

[Silver Bullet]

Another option if you don't want to vote for Bush: vote for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate. You still make a statement to Bush but don't empower the Dems (if you believe as I do that they are worse Grabbers than the Pubs).

[keederdag]

He sighns he's as anti as Slick Willie. I'll go LP, no suprise huh?:D

[Sergeant Bob]

You guys crack me up... one of the more radical gun rights organizations with the most passionate and involved, "No compromise" members can barely manage to get $0.57 per member to fund its PAC and people sit around and ask questions like "When does the revolution start?"
Molon Labe! Molon Labe! From my cold, dead, hands! If talk were bullets, the war would be over!

[mattd]

Its not going to take 10,000 people to make major political change, anyway what are planing to do with that many people anyway. It would more likely take about 30 people working alone.

You should vote for who you want, not who has the best chance of winning. Maybe we are stuck with a 2 party system before of this ideal of voting for who has the best chance?

[Don Galt]

If there is a civil war in this country, it won't be about gun rights. IT will be about tyranny. It will only happen when things get bad enough to push a lot of people across the line to where it seems like sure death if they don't stand up, and only possible death if they revolt.

And by "a lot of people" I think only %2-%5 of the population.

I don't want it to happen. I'm not looking for it. In fact, I'm structuring my life so that I never have to make that choice--- never have to risk the knock before midnight.

But that may mean I live outside the US before too long.

[gunsmith]

OK,so I get a little angry when I think about AWB and
old guys and vets going to jail for shooting to protect there
life and family like in NYC recently.
I am not so humble when expressing my opinion online,and I know I should tone it down a little,please forgive for overdoing it.

I think were closer to civil war then we would like to believe.
Look at that Judge Moore thing recently,if he had called for people to fight the removal with their fist and guns I think some may have taken him up.
Look at the riots we've had in LA.
If more planes get hijacked and cause the 100,000 deaths
that Al Queda has promised what will people think about the politicians
and bureacrats who refuse to let pilots carry guns?

More later

[MeekandMild]

I wouldn't exactly call Ross Perot a "weiner dog" Why not? Weiner dogs are stalwart little critters, fully ready to attack anything that moves, never give up, never retreat, never admit they are wrong about anything. The more one looks at Ross, the more weiner dog-like he becomes. :rolleyes:

[rayra]

Voting Bush, regardless. More than a single issue voter. And one glimpse at the crop of Democratic Party candidates (shudder) who are looking to complete the destruction of this Union is enough for me.
You Don-Quixotes can KEEP your Perot-Nader-Third Party wastes of a Vote.
If you think the Democratic Party WOULDN'T do WORSE harm to this country, then go ahead and have your voting tantrum IF the AWB is continued.

[Don Galt]

IF Bush signs the AWB, there IS no difference between the two parties.

Lets look at the issues:

Clinton: Free Trade Bush: Tarrifs
Clinton: AWB Bush: Extends the AWB (already done), bans all semi-autos (AWB "renewal"
Clinton: Increased Welfare Bush: Increased welfare (Already done)
Clinton: Balanced Budget Bush: Busted the Budget
Clinton: Higher Taxes Bush: No real tax cut, but the printing presses are now running at full steam (which is worse than Clinton's tax increases.)
Clinton: Reduced the size of the federal government Bush: Ballooned the federal government.
Clinton: Violations of the constituion. Bush: Raises it to an art form: the 4th ammendment violated by Federal Employees 4 million times a day.


The democrats: Want to ban guns, cut the size of government and raise taxes. No respect for the bill of rights.
The republicans: Ban guns while claiming they don't wnat to, balloon the size of the government, blow up the budget, and raise taxes. (Inflation is a form of taxation.) Massive violations of the Bill of Rights.

The AWB started with George Bush seniors ban on "Assault Weapons" in 1989. Has everyone forgotten that? Look at recent history... when the republicans are no different than the democrats, why keep voting for them? You think next time they will keep their promises?

[gunsmith]

You make a valid point.
Should I vote Libertarian?
dang everything seems so bleak now,I thought we did good this year.
God I am really praying for a good out come on the Silveria/Lockyer
case.
As Jim points out in his website,Lockyer bases his policy on the Cruikshank
decision,our lawyers should be able to destroy that.
I will never vote Repub again if AWB does not sunset

[Don Galt]

I think I goofed when I said the democrats want to cut the size of the government. While they did, I think that was mostly to be competitive with republicans during the Clinton era.

I think voting Libertarian is a good idea. I can't come up with a reason to vote strategicaly, because it is such strategic voting that allows the parties to not have to differentiate--- eg, if they break their commitments, don't support them.

But if Bush vetoes the AWB renewal, then I will have to give him a fair bit of respect for that. If he squeaks by without it hitting his desk then, then I won't be impressed.